About your Search

20121121
20121129
Search Results 0 to 16 of about 17 (some duplicates have been removed)
the sources of american power our, that you say the pentagon or the size of the federal debt. like, if you're the biggest debtor into a big issue certain power. are you optimistic that these can be really reversed, like 30 seconds because i'm very optimistic about america's future. i think we have to approach that future with confidence. we have to get our house right at home, but we have to be prepared to engage with confidence abroad. we still are that shining light on the hill that people look to. they are disappointed when we don't deliver. we are disappointed when we don't deliver. i think we can, both at home and abroad, find a way to move forward. it's not going to be simple. our government takes longer to get things done than the real economy would like. we've got to intercept the real and the political economy, but at the end of day am optimistic that we can make progress. >> thank you. ladies and gentlemen, thank you so much. [applause] spent i'm like doctor doom. i come on stage when it's time to go. the eternal foot man holding your code. >> tonight in primetime, we get a close
the sequestered . but did so by impacted the pentagon less heavily than the sequestered it. but divided government, i think you get the question. president said he does not want to change the money for the pentagon. mitch mcconnell said we are not raising taxes to ransom the pentagon budget cuts. a lot of focus has been on the pentagon but these are more concerned about the $50 billion in domestic discretionary spending restraint every year. you did to the republican study committee. the announced all a thing worse than sequestration would not be having savings. this stampede attempted did not take. he denied a demand that the defense budget be remain untouched, either of the public opinion or the house. i think sequestration happens. the only thing i could imagine is if they -- the r's and d's would both rather take it out of entitlements rather than the annual budgets. could they cut a deal where they save the same amount of money but out of entitlements? that is the only compromise i could see. then you get to the grand bargain idea. it seems every time i have these conversations were people as
as the pentagon. we ought to be thinking of that in terms of our values and our future. let me speak to a couple of elements here that i think progressives should keep in mind. progressives cannot afford to stand on the sidelines in this fiscal cliff debate. important critical decisions will be made soon that will affect this country for 10 years. i think we need to be a part of this conversation. we need to be open to some topics and some issues that are painful and hard for us to talk about. we cannot stand by the sidelines in denial that this is ever going to engage us in the things we value. we cannot be so naive to believe that just taxing the rich will solve our problems. i believe that is an important part of a solution. we have to look to reform and change that is significant, that preserves many of the values and programs that brought us political life, and we cannot believe that merely ignoring these programs or not engaging will solve the problem. pick up any of the newspapers and look for the full-page ads and you will see on a daily basis organizations that we respect and are engage
, a former pentagon official said among our guests. we begin tonight with that triple digit rally on wall street. the market interpreted positive statements on a potential deal on the fiscal cliff by house speaker and rebounded from what had been a 112-point slide after the morning's opening bell. the dow jones industrials reversed, as i said, on the speaker's positive remarks and finished the session up 107 points. s&p up 11, nasdaq gained 24. all ten s&p 500 sectors moved higher on the day. that is the first time it has happened since october 4th. retailers drove the consumer discretionary sector energy industrials lead in the wake, and the rally started just minutes before house speaker made it clear that republicans are willing to deal on revenue and ready to find a resolution now. >> we all know that we have had this spending crisis coming at us like a freight train. it must be dealt with. and in order to try to come to an agreement, republicans are willing to put revenue on the table, but it is time for the president and democrats to get serious about the spending problem that our c
for the pentagon and fluctuations in global energy prices can have dramatic, dramatic effects on defense spending. for every $10 increase in a barrel of oil it costs the american military annually an extra $1.3 billion. recognizing the potential instability that d.o.d.'s current energy needs can cause, military experts from across the various branches of the armed services have begun looking at ways to cut energy use and find energy alternative. now, i continued to hear all of this discussion about how this is somehow a green agenda and it's a suber havesive plot and it's being forced on a resistant president. and i just want to take a minute or two, mr. president, and say i don't think anything could be further from the truth and just wanted to describe for a moment why i feel that way. first, those who oppose defense energy initiatives often argue in today's fiscal environment, the country can't afford to waste money on energy programs when it's necessary to provide for our nation's security. i don't believe, mr. president, it is an either/or proposition, because my view is that an investment i
and shaped by general jones who has unique experience of serving in the pentagon and in the military and as the national security adviser to the president. he made a point that i was familiar with based on my experiences, that we had all these different agencies and departments and people all over the government as well as in the congress that had parts of the energy package but it never had a way to be brought together to take a look at what should be our energy policy and came up with this idea of the council which we are recommending where you pull all of the different departments chaired by the department of energy secretary, agencies, that will reach out to all the different interested parties to make sure their views are being taken into consideration. to do this quadrennial agency review somewhat similar to what they have done at the pentagon. it is very different from what they do at the pentagon. it is a technique that i have observed that works and is helpful for the department of the defense. talking about a strategy, a broader view, and then through the report get into th
and the unique experience even at the pentagon and security advisor to the president. he made an early point i was familiar with based on my experience with 35 years of congress that we have all these different agencies and departments and people all over the government as well as congress that had parts of the energy package that never had a way to take a look at what should be our policy and came up with this idea the council to recommend here comeau recalled the different departments chaired by the department of energy and secretary in agencies that reach out to all the interested parties to make sure their views take consideration. but it is royal energy review. it's very different from what they do at the pentagon. with this technique but it's helpful and it will be hall posters talk about a strategy in the broader view through the quaternary old report to really get into details. and the congress of course we've got all these different committees as part of the jurisdiction. i had a simple solution. i called the two minute she -- saint pete, we need some, but not. every now and then i wo
brought all these cases to the attention of the pentagon. the secretary of the army responded with an assurance that our flag would be flown at army installations whenever the flags of the states are on display. and many of the individual installations i mentioned took corrective action when i contacted them. but despite this response, i continue to receive reports of situations where territorial flags are forgotten. see, the problem is there is no uniform regulation governing the inclusion of the flags of the district of columbia and the territories, though the secretary -- army secretary said it is the policy of the air force, the coast guards, the marines and the navy to let local commanders have the discretion to display state flags. with or without the flags of the territories on their installations. i have requested that the service modify their regulations to include our flags but no action has been taken. and i believe it should not be at the discretion of individual base commanders to decide to exclude any part of the united states. or the fighting men and women from
answer to the pentagon. a city threw a bomb on to the bus or left one it is not a suicide bomber, but 10 people were injured. three of them very seriously wounded here in this attack. the two suspects on the list would be hamas or islamic jihad, both operating out of the gaza strip. hamas is peace talks and trying to figure out if a cease fire over israel with the rockets and the bombings on the other side going into the gaza strip . islamic jihad has a different agend a. they are backers in iran who are pushing for rocket fire against the gaz strip. we should have a shot up of this on our live view, you can actually see this bus that stopped. this harkens back to the days of the second intfada where you had bombing on the buses mainly suicide bombings. this doesn't appear to be that. but it is a mange failure for the israeli intelligence services in a critical time, whether it is going to derail the peace talks or not is yet to be scene. obviously the fact that secretary clinton is in town and able to be the a voice of calm could mean that everyone goes to cairo and gets involved in the
but there are only so many hours in the day and i have to stay up on this pentagon petraeus thing. >> stephanie: you've got stuff to do and i've got kitty videos to look at. can you ask jacki a thousand times a day. [ buzzer ] no! there you go. healthcare. say it again. >> healthcare.gov. >> i just put a link to it up on your facebook page. >> that's like magic! [ ♪ magic wand ♪ ] >> i'll work on -- speaking of healthcare, i'll work on getting that stuffing recipe for you. >> stephanie: give it up. >> sausage. sausage stuffing is really good. >> no, it doesn't. i'm sure you could add sauce and to it. it is sounding bad now. >> stephanie: you got jim's attention. thank you, jacki schechner. love you. >> love you guys, too. >> stephanie: have a delightful holiday side dish. 45 minutes after the hour. right back on "the stephanie miller show." >> announcer: it's like a mensa meeting with fart jokes. it's "the stephanie miller show." fruit just got cooler. fruit on one side, cool on the other. new ice breakers duo. a fruit
in the future. host: what would the pentagon cut if sequestration happen? guest: 9.4% cut, so it is on the order of $500 billion a little bit more. about half over all, over 10- year cuts in spending. it is a significant cut. host: going back to what we started with, they have not said specifically what they were looking at or bay -- have given the public some idea? guest: they said, first of all, but would be almost, but -- unavoidable to have furloughs. certainly contracts spending would be cut. the president had an option to exempt troops, the impact on their pay and he indicated he would exercise the option if that happens, so that would not be on the table. but there would definitely be cuts in weapons systems, contract and, and civilian furloughs. host: burlington, north carolina. republican caller. caller: i think we all have to agree -- in a sense that we are all in agreement -- that something needs to happen. but we already have the tools in place. we have bowles-simpson, which was an idea. the fear is that nothing is going to get done until january. there was little to no talk about cu
to our pentagon correspondent barbara starr. barbara, what are you learning? >> well, wolf, north korea says it is pursuing trying to launch a satellite into space. but intelligence services around the world doubt that that is true. this satellite image of a north korean missile launch pad was just snapped in the last 24 hours. u.s. government officials and private experts say it shows the same types of preparations including trucks and fuel tanks not seen since april when a long-range missile failed seconds after launch. north korea claimed then it was just trying to launch a satellite. the new digital globe image and this one taken just days before don't yet show a missile. but with these kinds of preps, a launch could happen in about three weeks if a missile is put on the launch pad according to analysis by digital globe. north korea watchers say the new leader, kim jong-un may be responding to internal political pressure from hardliners. >> on the other hand, he may also want it himself. he may decide it's the right kind of provocation just before the south korean president election
the sequester, that's good, less spending. i'm in favor of looking at the pentagon spending and reforming how you get it and get the same amount of dollars. look at the government spending. >> not a common republican position. >> more common than you think, but it's not common in the appropriations committee that does armed services. i talked to one of the key guys over there and said how can i help you reform the pentagon? there must have been -- >> i bet congressmen love getting that call, grover norquist, how can i help? >> i start meetings that way. want to make the government more efficient, make it cost less and we are everybody's friend on that subject. ralph nader and i were lobbying the bush administration back in 2001. >> what about the second cliff, the bush tax cuts? >> i think -- you get towards the end in a thing and if the republicans have played it right, they said look, push it out a month or two weeks so you should never actually go over these things, just as you do with continuing resolutions. say, look, give it a week, two months. >> the president is not going to extend. h
understand that. but the idea of the state department, it was actually the pentagon last week, a woman said i had my first kid -- i saved up my vacation and sick days and used them all up. even in the federal government, we need paid leave. i think beyond that, high- quality accessible daycare. i do not understand why that is not much more of a political issue than it is. those will in fact all women -- most of us in the room can manage without the last one. we can buy it or find it, but it ought to be far more general and accessible for those who cannot afford it. those issues cover the waterfront. there are other issues that do not. the kind of flexibility i am talking about will be very helpful for women who have a shot at leadership positions and might allow women to stay in the game so that when you have kids and need to do work differently you do not give up on the career you trained for and educated for and started for and are still eligible for leadership down the road. flexibility for people at the bottom of the chain can mean something really different -- it can mean you work 15 or
% smaller gdp. the guys that want more money from the pentagon should be focused on economic growth, not on trying to take a larger piece of the shrinking pie. so i think the growth is the only way to get out from -- 4% a year instead of obama's reef for a decade and you wipe out obama's accumulated debt in the first term that he has run up in the debt. so i think there's some very important focuses on growth, and yeah when we see something in writing i'm not going to get involved in some hypothetical because every once in awhile i try to help somebody expand the hypothetical and then that gets turned into one more than i perhaps said were intended to say. but when something is written down -- the good news is you have it written down and you put it on line for seven days and of the press and the american people look. is this a tax increase? let's see, take a look at it. it's going to be there clearly a tax increase or not. problems in the 2011 budget or the tax increase. easy. the 2010 budget deal. we have lots of deals and they will be on the phone wondering if it is a tax increas
Search Results 0 to 16 of about 17 (some duplicates have been removed)